Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Bonnie Chandler
Harvard, MA
Recent Activity
-
Bonnie commented on the petition |This is crazy. Paying online saves them money.
-
Bonnie signed the petition |
-
Bonnie signed the petition | -
Bonnie commented on the article |It's amazing to me how you can be so determined to go on believing in anthropogenic climate warming now that Climategate has happened. Can't you see it's over? Not only the anthropogenic theory, but even the natural warming period itself looks like it's over as well. My prediction for the next decade: The public will never fully trust scientists or environmentalists again. They have cried "wolf" once too often.
-
Bonnie commented on the article |Among these hypothetical medical improvements, you left out the one major disease that will almost certainly have a FULL CURE in the next decade: juvenile diabetes.
-
Bonnie commented on the article |Declaring that something is so ("there isn't much of a debate at all when it comes to the science, not anymore") does not make it so. Unfortunately, when you are a journalist and you make such declarations, you affect how the public sees it, because their only source of information is news media and they are not aware of what is going on in the actual field.
-
Bonnie commented on the article |
Emily, I notice that you did not reply to my assertion that NO scientists believes that the primary cause of global warming is anything other than changes in the sun's energy output -- that what scientists are talking about when they talk about human-induced global warming is around one percent of the total warming effect. Those who ascribe to anthropogenic global warming believe that that extra one percent or so, which some of them believe humans have added to the equation, could be enough to tip the warming fluctuation into an irreversible trend, instead of continuing to fluctuate as it has for the history of our planet. They hope that removing that one percent would set the Earth back on track --that is, those who believe it is off track now believe it. This is what the debate is about, and it is another aspect of journalism's failure to educate the public that the public doesn't seem to have any inkling of this.
-
Bonnie commented on the article |
I have written for the Bolton Common, the Harvard Post, and a few other publications. The scientists whose opinions I quoted are PhD research scientists and professors at Harvard U., MIT, the Smithsonian Institute, NASA, JPL, and a few other such institutions. I repeat, I don't know where PEW found so many scientists to back up their biased report, unless they only interviewed "climatologists." The scientists I know say they do not consider climatology a true science yet, because the entire science is based on questionable computer models with built-in assumptions that have yet to be corroborated with enough years of real data to be acceptable to serious scientists. They say that before the models can be accepted as fact, they will need to wait for the results of several more years of real data collection to test them against, followed by a lot of tweaking to make them reliable. However, the public does not know these details, so they believe whatever the politicians and journalists tell them, especially if it sounds attention-getting or apocalyptic. That is why I used the words "irresponsible journalism": journalists should carefully explain all the complexities and avoid oversimplifying science, because that is where the inaccuracies creep in and, in the case of "global warming," have completely taken over and acquired a life of their own. Many climate scientists' careers are now so heavily invested in the global warming theory that it would be the death of their career if they tried to backtrack even a little when present results disagree with their own past conclusions. Surely you must see how ridiculous it is to say that the researchers on your side are all virtuous and the researchers on the other side are all venial and bribed by oil companies.
-
Bonnie commented on the article |
I grew up in Texas, too. We had summers like that some years, and some years not. Sometimes there would be several years of drought, or of severe weather, followed by quieter years. You can't use local anecdotal data like that to project global trends. One part of the world can be cooler when another is warmer. Global temperatures are figured by using data from many locations, most of them locations that have been collecting such data for a century or more. Scientists have explained to me that this collection method introduces inaccuracies, too, because such traditional collection spots are necessarily near long-settled population centers, so that skews the data. They are adding more non-populated collection areas to counterbalance that.
-
Bonnie commented on the article |Stephanie, I strongly object to your idea that veganism/animal rights is a mainstream idea, not an extremist one. For the whole history of the human race we have been omnivores, and even the rare, semi-vegetarian societies were caused by environmental circumstances that made meat hard to get. And those societies were not vegan, but vegetarian, and gladly ate meat on the rare occasions it was available. The truth is, a true vegan diet cannot sustain human life without supplements that are only obtainable from animal sources. You are, of course, welcome to believe whatever you like and malnourish yourself into an early death if you wish, but when you start advocating laws to force your veganism on the rest of us, that is unacceptable and unAmerican.
Impact
2 Actions
0 Recruits
Top Causes
|
1 Action
|